OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/21564/Building_a_Hackintosh_Apple_Can_t_Sue_You_For
Exploring the Future of Computingen-usCopyright 2001-2015, David Adamsadam+nospam@osnews.comTue, 31 Mar 2015 22:05:42 GMThttp://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gifOSNews.comhttp://www.osnews.com
missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365542
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365542Until its proven that the EULA is, or isn't, leagaly binding (and your country enforces that ruling), then Apple could theoretically still sue. This is more so the case state side (USA) where you can sue someone for virtually any reason.

That aside, I like the article.Tue, 26 May 2009 21:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (poundsmack)CommentsHere's how it goes downhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365544
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365544One fine day you will be walking down the street, and you will see a mailman driving a mail truck with an Apple logo on the side. He might even be someone you know. He will pull over and ask you to get in. DON'T get in! Whatever you do Thom, don't get in.Tue, 26 May 2009 21:38:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fretinator)CommentsRE: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365547
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365547You forgot that I labeled the computer with an Apple logo. Problem solved .Tue, 26 May 2009 21:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda)CommentsGreat article, but...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365548
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365548All the site admins, watch out for an official looking envelope with an Apple logo on it...
That aside, I do like the article and it certainly sounds easier than the old way of doing it... which was why I eventually just scrapped the hackintosh idea for myself. It was fun, but just too much of a hassle. I'll have to check that forum thread for my hardware, the last time I looked it up none of my computers were supported well enough for me to use boot 132... well, except my Macbook, but that doesn't really count for this situation, seeing as how it has a built in boot 132...Tue, 26 May 2009 21:50:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (darknexus)CommentsRE: Here's how it goes downhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365550
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365550Don't listen to him, Thom. Just get in the truck, I promise you will have a good time.Tue, 26 May 2009 21:51:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Tuishimi)CommentsRE[2]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365552
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365552haha touche. now to really drill the legality in, try calling apple up and insisting on getting an Apple Care subscription for the rig . see how long it takes the tech to hang up on you (one of my personal favorite games with Dell tech's).

..on a side note (and i mean side note, as in nothing ot do with the article). Call Dell up some time and insist you have one of their machines (with no lables) and that you cant get teh graphics card ot install correctly, even though you ahve followed the instructions to the letter. ...to save you from a long rant, the end result is that the desktop is actually a toaster and your "installing" of the graphics card is putting it in and pressing the down button to begin the toasting process.

I spent over 2 hours on the phone with a Dell tech named "Steve" (with no last name mind you), reiterating my problem over and over in different ways getting "slightly closer to having it work" with each attempt. "I spell burning and I don't seem to be able to get on the internet now, is it suposed to do that?". Ah drunk dialing Dell. THATS WHAT YOU GET FOR MAKING ME GO THROUGH THE WHOLE SCRIPT AND NOT ESCALATING MY ISSUE EVEN THOUGH I HAVE THE HIGEST SUPORT CONTRACT AVALIBLE FOR MY SERVER. ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS SEND ME A NEW MOBO!

Are all on him he got a source to get them for free for anyone who ask ... Or maybe you need to use a secret code at is unamed dutch favorite vendor.Tue, 26 May 2009 22:08:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Moulinneuf)CommentsNo HT?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365555
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365555The Atom arch is very dependent on HT for descent performance. Loosing it would would be a showstopper for me. What advantage does OSX offer to outweight the performance lost?Tue, 26 May 2009 22:22:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (kragil)CommentsRE: No HT?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365557
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365557OSX can utilize HyperThreading. After all, when Steve Jobs first told the world that Apple had been cooking up OSX on x86 boxes for a while the minimus sys requirements was a P4 with HT (since those were what the development boxes Apple had used). For more on HyperThreading as it aplies now see here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-atom-cpu,1947-5.htmlTue, 26 May 2009 22:26:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (poundsmack)CommentsRE: Sweet Thom is giving hardware ...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365558
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365558I already have a 19" LCD, a mouse and keyboard. I also have a KVM. What I don't have is room on my desk for four monitors, keyboards and mice. I suspect Thom has more than one computer in his house too, oddly enough.Tue, 26 May 2009 22:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Vanders)CommentsGreat article, but...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365559
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365559Wwhat if you already own a Mac and have a retail version of Leopard or maybe even Tiger? Would Tiger work as well?Tue, 26 May 2009 22:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ghostdawg)CommentsRE: Great article, but...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365560
http://www.osnews.com/thread?36556010.4 is not a good candidate for modding or using on bland Intel setup's. As to why I am not 100% sure since obviously the codebase can handel it, but I don't personally know anyone who has done it.Tue, 26 May 2009 22:39:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (poundsmack)CommentsRE[2]: No HT?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365563
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365563I can confirm that HT works under OSX, on *an* Atom (N230) because that's what lives in my OSX-enabled Mini 9 netbook, a boot-132 vanilla install, and HT is running fine. It's more probable that there's some issue with both HT and dualcore + Atom, since the 330 has both of those features (check processorfinder.intel.com if you don't believe me), although I will note that the new Nehalem-based Mac Pros utilise HT to deliver 8- or 16-thread capability on single- and dual-quadcore systems.

It's a common issue with osx86 to have to set cpus=1 under certain chipsets/procs, so I'm guessing that OSX's SMP implementation simply isn't as universal as, say, Linux or Windows. And why would it have to be? After all, it only needs to run on Macs Tue, 26 May 2009 22:44:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Theodric)CommentsRE[3]: No HT?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365564
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365564Yes, you're right. I need to change the article to say HT on the Atom 330 *specifically* isn't supported (yet?).

Good catch, guys. Fixing.Tue, 26 May 2009 22:50:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda)CommentsRE[2]: Great article, but...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365565
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365565actually tiger works too, but the hardware supported by tiger is fewer than leopard, for example my 8800gts didn't have 3d acceleration out of the box with tiger, but it works perfectly with leopardTue, 26 May 2009 22:59:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Verunks)CommentsI am cheating...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365566
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365566...and spending the dough for the EFI-X unit. If, however, it is not scheduled to arrive for days after my new hardware arrives, I am definitely going to get antsy and give this a shot, Thom.

...all held together in a Cooler Master RC-690 (w/ a Cooler Master 700W PS too).

This system should rock with both Windows and OS X. Maybe I'll dedicate a third drive for Linux. Tue, 26 May 2009 23:16:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Tuishimi)CommentsIf OS X so great why don't they release a copy for PCs http://www.osnews.com/thread?365567
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365567If the OS X is so great, why don't they release a
copy for the general PC. Most likely if they did
they would have the same issues what Microsoft has
when it releases update. Apple has issues updating
its OS right now. If they had to release updates
on a larger scale they would have to increase its
staff. I don't see this happening any time soon.Tue, 26 May 2009 23:21:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (GenBlood)CommentsRE: If OS X so great why don't they release a copy for PCs http://www.osnews.com/thread?365568
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365568....you know you just basicaly answered your own statement right? Also Apple's main revenu comes from hardware (not including iPhone/music)Tue, 26 May 2009 23:24:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (poundsmack)CommentsRE[2]: Sweet Thom is giving hardware ...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365570
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365570Thom said :

I'm now enjoying a brand new Macintosh for less than 200 EUR.

Will your point is still valid and probably apply to Thom too , it's not what I was going for , pointing out that he is missing some components in his description , witch make his price obersevation obsolete if he don't say if you already have those and even name/price them.

Beside these days it's more practical to go with laptop / netbook , then mini ITX. They stack better , can be put on wall or bracket mounts. They also come with screen , mouse and dvd included , they are also portable and priced in the 400$-500$ range.

I am waiting for Apple to release a netbook type computer in the 500$ range. Just so that it cover the people who don't have 1200$ , it would probably crush the Apple clone too , who would go for them when the original is 500$.Tue, 26 May 2009 23:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Moulinneuf)CommentsYour &quot;legal&quot; argument is completely wronghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365572
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365572Your entire legal hypothesis seems to rest on this statement:

"Since Darwin is open source, this is completely legal, and doesn't break the DMCA since you're not actually hacking any protection measures."

Unfortunately, you are completely wrong. The DMCA says that any circumvention of a copy protection device is against the law. It doesn't matter if all the pieces used to circumvent the copy protection are legal. It doesn't matter how trivial the protection is. The fact that there is a copyright protection device preventing you from installing OS X (which I'm assuming isn't under debate since you seem to have, at least implicitly, stated that there is one), any circumvention is illegal no matter how you go about it.Edited 2009-05-27 00:04 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 00:03:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (rhavyn)CommentsRE: Your &quot;legal&quot; argument is completely wronghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365575
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365575I would argue your wrong. I would argue that the device isn't a copy protection device since in fact it isn't actually needed to use the computer. The fact that a boot loader will load OS X is not circumvention, since if I was loading Windows or Linux, it would be perfectly fine. Not using something on your computer is NOT circumvention. Altering your motherboard so that the device works differently IS circumvention. There is no alteration to the workings of the motherboard. Hence it should be perfectly fine. Course, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple does something to make this not work.Wed, 27 May 2009 00:24:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (TechGeek)CommentsRE[3]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365576
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365576

I spent over 2 hours on the phone with a Dell tech named "Steve" (with no last name mind you), reiterating my problem over and over in different ways getting "slightly closer to having it work" with each attempt. "I spell burning and I don't seem to be able to get on the internet now, is it suposed to do that?". Ah drunk dialing Dell. THATS WHAT YOU GET FOR MAKING ME GO THROUGH THE WHOLE SCRIPT AND NOT ESCALATING MY ISSUE EVEN THOUGH I HAVE THE HIGEST SUPORT CONTRACT AVALIBLE FOR MY SERVER. ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS SEND ME A NEW MOBO!

You don't have an ex girlfriend or at least a girl you're stalking to annoy? I'd want to stab myself in the eye after talking to support people to 2 hrs.Wed, 27 May 2009 00:29:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (stabbyjones)Commentswill this work on VMWare?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365578
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365578Anyone tried this on VMWare?Wed, 27 May 2009 01:37:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (petermc)CommentsRE[2]: Your &quot;legal&quot; argument is completely wronghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365580
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365580No, he's right. Apple actively prevents you from installing on a regular PC, and Boot123 circumvents that protection. It's a clear-cut DMCA violation. Don't get me wrong, I write this with a motherboard on its way that will allow me to run vanilla OSX86, but I don't pretend that it won't be illegal.Wed, 27 May 2009 01:46:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Alex Forster)CommentsRE: Sweet Thom is giving hardware ...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365584
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365584

Sweet Thom Holwerda is giving free Hardware to anyone who ask :

- Mouse
- Keyboard
- LCD screen

Are all on him he got a source to get them for free for anyone who ask ... Or maybe you need to use a secret code at is unamed dutch favorite vendor.

Even still. He has essentially built a mac mini for $400 less than what the mac mini costs. Even if you do buy a monitor your still $100-$200 in the green.Edited 2009-05-27 02:40 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 02:30:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (computrius)CommentsRE: will this work on VMWare?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365585
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365585I want to know as well (or Linux KVM, or Virtualbox, or...). Guess I'll go read the thread -- I just do not normally frequent Mac forums as I have never owned one.

EDIT: no one in the thread apparently tried. I'll Google some, but I am not interested enough to hack it up myself.Edited 2009-05-27 02:53 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 02:45:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (license_2_blather)CommentsRE[3]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365586
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365586No WONDER tech support people sound so tired and irritable whenever I call... It's people like you.Wed, 27 May 2009 02:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (DigitalAxis)CommentsRE: Your &quot;legal&quot; argument is completely wronghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365588
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365588

Unfortunately, you are completely wrong. The DMCA says that any circumvention of a copy protection device is against the law. It doesn't matter if all the pieces used to circumvent the copy protection are legal. It doesn't matter how trivial the protection is. The fact that there is a copyright protection device preventing you from installing OS X (which I'm assuming isn't under debate since you seem to have, at least implicitly, stated that there is one), any circumvention is illegal no matter how you go about it.

The question is: Did Apple actively put countermeasures or DRM on the retail Leopard install DVD's to stop users from installing it on a non Apple computers. Far as I can tell that answer is no. Apple did not include the drivers and other pieces of software that would be required to run out the box on a non EFI computer with a standard bios. But I have not seen any evidence that Apple put in DRM to stop people from installing MacOS. And even now (I have a MSI Wind U100 with Mac OS on it) when you install updates they don't add any software that in its self would kill a Hackentosh.

Just the same as Apple added a DMCA claim against Psystar but has not pushed it by asking a court for a DMCA infringement injunction to stop Psystar. I think that is because Apple does not have a case using the DMCA alone.Wed, 27 May 2009 03:24:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Windows Sucks)CommentsRE[2]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365591
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365591

You forgot that I labeled the computer with an Apple logo. Problem solved .

LOL. Might as well....it's the same thing, without the $1,000+ "cool"-factor tax.Wed, 27 May 2009 04:25:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Phloptical)CommentsCommercial sales?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365594
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365594Are any of the current "hackintosh" companies using this method? Seems like it would be the easiest and cheapest, and give them the most flexibility for hardware choices.Wed, 27 May 2009 04:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Bobthearch)CommentsRE: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365595
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365595An technically: until OS X detects that this configuration doesn't include a specific device that Macs have (ex. a chip). This is probably Apple was searching for engineers specialized in manufacturing chips a while back.

But I'd be more interested in installing Vista on an iMac. Take the best of both worlds Wed, 27 May 2009 05:08:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Liquidator)CommentsRE[2]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365596
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365596LOL...OSNews is based in the US. I would be worried about posting such an article, I think that's crossing the line Wed, 27 May 2009 05:21:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Liquidator)CommentsPerformancehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365598
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365598My concern is, how did that rig perform?

I've used OS X on a Macbook Air; it has an ultra-low-power mobile Core 2 Duo. The performance of the operating system was kinda pathetic on this machine.

How would a dual-core Atom with 533MHz RAM perform? Ubuntu isn't too snappy on the single-core Atom with HT; I'm using a Foxconn 45GS motherboard. I imagine OS X would be quite annoying to use on your hackintosh.Wed, 27 May 2009 05:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (3rdalbum)CommentsRE: Performancehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365599
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365599Well, it's no speed demon, obviously.

Still, this Mac OS X thing was supposed to be a gimmick only, just for this article and to see how easy it was. This machine's eventual goal was to replace my Pentium 4 box as my new media centre (so with Windows 7).

Now I'm kinda in doubt as to what to do with it :/.Wed, 27 May 2009 05:41:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda)CommentsRE[2]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365602
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365602Actually, Mac OS X does detect the hardware configuration. But the detection is apparently through EFI only, and boot-132 replaces EFI with a version emulating the required hardware keys.Wed, 27 May 2009 06:42:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Traumflug)CommentsRE[3]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365603
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365603Crossing what line? It might be actionable in the US to actually break the Eula terms - that is, Apple might be able to sue you for damages and have you cease and desist. Doubtful, but it might be.

However, there is nothing illegal about publishing an article about how you broke a EULA. Under what law or contract are they going to sue you?

Not copyright by the way. US copyright law not only explicitly makes it lawful to modify a copyrighted software work in the cause of interoperability, it also makes it lawful to tell other people how it was done.Wed, 27 May 2009 06:43:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (alcibiades)CommentsThe EULA is invalid, depending on the state in the USAhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365605
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365605Unfortunately, not all state judges have a brain when it comes to consumer laws.

But if your lucky, you'd be in a state where EULAs are invalid.

So, depending on the state OSNews is in, they could be ok.Wed, 27 May 2009 06:51:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Shannara)Comments???http://www.osnews.com/thread?365606
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365606I don't get it Thom. Do you think your little box is special? People have been building hackintosh computers for quite some time now and haven't been sued by Apple.

Apple has gone after a business, not individual persons. That distinction is lost on you.Wed, 27 May 2009 06:52:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (macUser)CommentsRE[4]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365607
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365607Incentive to circumvent legal-binding terms of use.

It's like those hackers that share .RAR files with a text file inside, containing a serial number to activate proprietary software, with a disclaimer: "If you like the application, please buy it", or "I'm not responsible for the use you make of this serial".

Of course this is illegal in the US.Wed, 27 May 2009 06:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Liquidator)CommentsRE: Sweet Thom is giving hardware ...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365608
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365608You've put your finger on the problem with the iMac. Lets be explicit about it.

Most people now already have a keyboard and mouse and screen. They are not in the market to replace them, at the moment at least. Most have already got rid of their old VDU and replaced it with flat screen, and many prefer the keyboard they are used to.

So, they are looking for base units. Why not? Its reasonable, cost effective, comfortable, and its green.

They buy an iMac, Apple forces them to buy a screen and keyboard they do not need or even want. And charges them handsomely for it. And then another one, when there will still be nothing wrong with them, but the processor and main board are in need of replacement.

This is what creates the market for Hackintoshes. Value for money. Of course, Thom has used an Atom, which is not what you'd use if you were looking for a Core 2 heavyweight system. But it will be a similar story compared to the iMac in terms of price, compared to the Mini it will totally outclass it in terms of performance for less money, and compared to the Pro it will deliver 85% of the performance for 25% of the price.

And this is why Psystar had to get sued. On the other hand of course, what with FreePC, EFI-X, PearC and the Russian guys, this has now reached the stage of official pandemic watch. Be careful folks, cases are liable to occur in a computer store near you. It is not just infectious, its starting to look contagious.Wed, 27 May 2009 06:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (alcibiades)CommentsRE[3]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365609
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365609If in the future, Macs have a verification chip that communicate with OS X using strong encryption, it's gonna be ever harder for hackers to circumvent this protection and to emulate the genuine chip.Wed, 27 May 2009 06:56:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Liquidator)CommentsApple Tolerates This To Some Extenthttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365610
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365610

Apple can't do anything about this

If Apple were serious about hobbling Hackintoshes, they could do something about that. Add more hardware tests, test the hardware from various places, do it directly, sans EFI. If there were hundreds of binary blobs to be patched (only the kernel is open source), hacks would require a lot of time, Hackintoshes would remain unreliable.

But apparently, they are not so keen about getting rid of Hackintoshes. Isn't this the same as with millions of hacked Windows machines around the world, leading to some sort of world domination?Wed, 27 May 2009 06:59:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Traumflug)CommentsRE[2]: Your &quot;legal&quot; argument is completely wronghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365612
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365612Both DMCA and copyright allow you certain privileges in respect of acts which are either to enable competition or to enable interworking.

DMCA explicitly allows you to hack in order to bypass restrictions which limit competition. Garage door openers, mobiles and so on. Copyright in the US allows you to crack and alter in order to make interworking possible, and it also allows you to publish the methods.

If we consider that efi is an international standard, there is no way that placing your machine in a state to install OSX via it is unlawful.

Thom has of course violated the EULA clause which forbids installing on non-Macs. Whether this clause is enforceable? Because that's all that seems to be actionable in his method? Almost certainly not in the EU. Probably not in the US.Wed, 27 May 2009 07:04:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (alcibiades)CommentsRE[2]: Sweet Thom is giving hardware ...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365617
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365617The market for people with a keyboard and a mouse is taken care of via the Mac Mini line,

The iMac is geared towards an all in one solution for people who want the screen etc..Wed, 27 May 2009 08:29:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (REM2000)CommentsRE[2]: Sweet Thom is giving hardware ...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365618
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365618

Even still. He has essentially built a mac mini for $400 less than what the mac mini costs.

a current mac mini will totally destroy thoms machine. an single atom roughly compares to an g4 running at 2/3 the ghz. his double core 1,6 ghz atom with a lousy gma 950 and without hyperthreading will be somewhere between the last g4 minis and the first single core intel minis. and the used price of this macs (see: www.mac2sell.net) is comparable to what he paid for his new pc. i still feel tempted to use this to replace my loud emac, but it's not that obvious that it's the best alternative for a small, cheap, silent not-so-powerful mac:

+ you can use a 3,5 '' harddisk which will be much faster and cheaper than the 2,5 '' used in the mac mini
- sleep doesn't work
- you'll have to reinstall drivers after every updateEdited 2009-05-27 08:36 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 08:35:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (puenktchen)CommentsRE: Performancehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365619
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365619

I've used OS X on a Macbook Air; it has an ultra-low-power mobile Core 2 Duo. The performance of the operating system was kinda pathetic on this machine.

i'd blame the hard drive and not the processor.Wed, 27 May 2009 08:40:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (puenktchen)CommentsRE[3]: Sweet Thom is giving hardware ...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365620
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365620You're totally right of course, and I'm not saying this machine is somehow a good Mac Mini alternative. This is just an experiment to show how easy it is to make your own Mac. I chose to build an Atom machine because 1) dual-core Atom 330 is rare and teh awesome, 2) it's cheap.

Also note that the Mac Mini probably draws a buttload more power.Wed, 27 May 2009 08:46:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda)CommentsGood articlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365621
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365621That was surprising fun for an OSNews article! I may try it one of these days. Down with politics/fan wars/legal stuff, up with tech!Wed, 27 May 2009 08:47:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (dimosd)Commentsefi-x can do the same without the hasslehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365622
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365622Hello Tom and fellow osnewsers,

By my experience i tried the route that Tom discussed in the article, frankly speaking it is to much to expect even though you are used to install various linux distros and hacking around with your system. This is too much hassle to have if you wish to have a day to day normal workstation. Instead I went for the efix module way, halfway checked the compatibility of my motherboard and now i am a happy camper.

My motherboard was not on the HCL(Asus p5k) but this should not pose a problem. Geforce 8800GT was ok, Sata DVD ok, wireless ethernet ok,.. The only thing i had to do after the install was to install the drivers for onboard audio which was not being recognized, 2 mouse clicks away

What i mean to say is that efix does a better implementation of efi support, much better that boot1-2-3 because it passes all efi checks throug the usb module. Even installing 10.5.7 update was a no brainer and previous 10.5.6 update the same... efix implementation is the best IMHO since it does not stress the user with hackish/linux like halfway done solutions and worrying when something will break. I bought the module for 80euros but it was worth all the way. Efix even has a flasher updater where they fix eventual issues and futher expand the hcl when they feel the hardware has passed all tests. The only thing i cannot ask from them is full support because i do not have the motherboard on their list, but who cares since it is 99% working out of the box

Today i have a core2duo 2.53Ghz machine with 2GB of ram, 2x500GB HD, Geforce8800GT graphics card(i forgot to mention the sweetnes and fluidity of the graphic effects)... pretty standard machine by all means but enhanced greatly by the usability of osx and hassle free efix module. I respect the guys even though many people say that they stole code from the comunity. It is the implementation and the licensing that they made from Intel for EFI(as they say) that makes it worth supporting them.

Not bad at all having a quasi 2.000,00 EUR MACpro machine under my desk with some minor checking of components and the 80eur module.

I also must say the the insanely mac community is insanely fredly and always halpfull in case you will ever need help...that is my 2 cents... feel free to comment further Wed, 27 May 2009 08:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (gvodop)CommentsRE: efi-x can do the same without the hasslehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365623
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365623Thanks for the info, it could prove handyWed, 27 May 2009 09:12:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (dimosd)CommentsIt's not 100% stock Os Xhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365624
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365624That's because you've said that you need to reinstall the drivers after each update. I thought that by using boot123 method to install Os X, you store your drivers on a hidden partition, dvd or even usb stick and you don't need to hassle with reinstalling the drivers each time you upgrade Os X.

I will test iatkos install disk. They pretend that you can upgrade your system just like a real mac:

"The major improvement on this 5i release is updating your running system using software updater just like real Macs. This is possible for Intel based chipsets. Please read the information about preparing an upgradable system below."Wed, 27 May 2009 09:26:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (twitterfire)CommentsRE: It's not 100% stock Os Xhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365626
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365626

That's because you've said that you need to reinstall the drivers after each update. I thought that by using boot123 method to install Os X, you store your drivers on a hidden partition, dvd or even usb stick and you don't need to hassle with reinstalling the drivers each time you upgrade Os X.

That's possible too, but I don't like the idea of hidden partitions and other nonsense. I prefer simply keeping a driver package around and re-installing that (2 seconds) every time a 10.5.x update comes along.

"You forgot that I labeled the computer with an Apple logo. Problem solved .

LOL. Might as well....it's the same thing, without the $1,000+ "cool"-factor tax. "

I don't know anyone who buy's Apple for the 'cool' factor; I purchase an iPod because there are no other hard disk based players in New Zealand are are compatible with Mac's out of the box by the vendor. I purchase a Mac because I want Mac OS X - if Apple licenced Mac OS X each of the big vendors - I wouldn't have bought a Mac.

Its a tongue 'n cheek reply of yours - I know, but the reality is that the joke is getting very tiresome after a while.Wed, 27 May 2009 09:43:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai)CommentsRE[4]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365629
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365629

I don't know anyone who buy's Apple for the 'cool' factor;

I know A LOT of those. Then again, I frequent Amsterdam and that cesspool of a city is filled with people who would use such reasoning to buy products.Edited 2009-05-27 09:52 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 09:52:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda)CommentsRE[4]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365632
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365632Although, that will only be effective when:

a) They start shipping Macs with verification chips

b) They stop supporting the existing hardware base

c) They prove that you can't emulate the verification chip (the reality is that it will be possible to emulate, the question is how much processing power it will take), and the check can't be bypassed.

Bottom line is it might eventually (after a long time to get through the hardware cycles) have an effect on casual installation, but it's not going to stop anyone determined. Ever.Wed, 27 May 2009 10:22:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (grahamtriggs)CommentsRE[4]: No HT?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365634
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365634At an educated guess it's probably an ACPI issue that means OS X is not correctly detecting the number of cores, or is not correctly identifying them as HT cores.

Hardware wise the SMP stuff itself is pretty much universal across every SMP capable x86 since the original Pentium.Wed, 27 May 2009 10:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Vanders)CommentsRE[4]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365635
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365635No, no. Guys like him are good distractions. We are, in general, just lazy.Wed, 27 May 2009 10:58:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (thjayo)CommentsRE[5]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365637
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365637

It's not going to stop anyone determined. Ever.

If it takes too much time and effort to reverse-engineer, people are just gonna give up.Wed, 27 May 2009 11:37:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Liquidator)CommentsRE[6]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365639
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365639They can't ad a very strong protection chip because they need to support the actual mac hardware who has not such chips.Wed, 27 May 2009 11:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (twitterfire)CommentsRE[3]: Your &quot;legal&quot; argument is completely wronghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365642
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365642I'm not so sure you're right on this one. Apple does require your hardware to have EFI to bootstrap the install DVD, beyond that it's standard PC hardware. That seems to me to be passive prevention at best. If Boot123/Boot132 were illegal, then so would rEFIt be. It is the same concept in reverse, allowing you to install OSes onto Macs that are not officially supported by Apple, such as Linux. It does this by manipulating the EFI installed on the Mac.

Besides, emulation is completely legal unless you use illegal ROM files. Since Intel Macs don't use ROMs to boot, there's no illegal copying going on. EFI, an open standard not owned by Apple, is being emulated using an open-source platform. You can't get much more legal than that. Soon all PC motherboards will use EFI instead of legacy BIOS to bootstrap, and those machines will likely boot a retail Leopard disc without any workarounds.

As far as I can tell the only tenuous ground Thom is on is regarding the EULA, since his computer isn't truly Apple-labeled.

All in all, I really doubt Apple will care or even notice since this is a one-off experiment for personal use and enjoyment. I'd only expect a backlash if Thom started selling these machines with OS X preinstalled for profit.Wed, 27 May 2009 12:39:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Morgan)CommentsIntel only?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365645
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365645I would not be interested in supporting Intel. Can AMD or other processors be used?Edited 2009-05-27 13:28 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 13:27:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Machster)CommentsRE[4]: missleading title - the other side alsohttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365646
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365646Some poor phone jockey had to take that two hour call. It screwed there call quota for the day which effects there job. It probably drove them a little nuts in honestly trying to help. The worst part being that it was a third party company not Dell who actually took the hit. It's like slapping the person on your left in frustration with the person on your right.

I know people now who have trouble answering any phone due to scars from working in call centers in the past.Wed, 27 May 2009 13:34:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (jabbotts)CommentsRE[4]: missleading title - ah.. music playershttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365647
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365647I went with a non-iPod music player myself as it would have limited me intolerably.

- only works with Windows and osX
- only plays music, displays images and plays video (later models)

The iTouch and phone expand the possibilities greatly but you still don't get full functionality without voiding your warranty. They do very well for what they are designed to do though so I don't mean to slam anyone who found it to be the best choice for there own needs.Wed, 27 May 2009 13:39:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (jabbotts)CommentsRE: ???http://www.osnews.com/thread?365648
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365648If Thom can legally do it, so can Psystar. Neither the EULA nor the law makes any distinction.Wed, 27 May 2009 13:41:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Bobthearch)CommentsRE[5]: missleading title - nope.. it's publishinghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365649
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365649No, this article would fall under publishing perfectly legal information. It does not premote theft, violence or cracking in any way. Freedom of the press tends to be taken very seriously.

This is nothing like publishing serial numbers, serial generators or binary cracks that modify the target programs ability to confirm a valid license.

Also, the legality of the EULA as a binding contract is still very much up for debate. The worst Apple could do is refuse to support the OS so you won't be visiting the Genious Bar (tm) with your non-apple hardware.Edited 2009-05-27 13:46 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 13:44:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (jabbotts)CommentsRE[7]: missleading title - they are dropping PowerPChttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365650
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365650I've heard that they are dropping support for the older PowerPC hardware meaning my wife's macbook will have to be replaced rather than simply buying the next major osX version. If that's the case, dropping older non-authenticating intel machines may be possible in a few years.

The bigger risk is if they manage to implement an authentication mechanism in such a way that it requires circumvention. Then they can abuse the DMCA the same way the big media companies get too.Wed, 27 May 2009 14:00:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (jabbotts)CommentsRE[8]: missleading title - they are dropping PowerPChttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365652
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365652If your wife has a "MacBook", she does not have a PowerPC processor. That would be a PowerBook or iBook.Wed, 27 May 2009 14:30:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (memson)CommentsMSI Windhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365653
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365653I've witnessed an MSI Wind running OS X. 10.5.7, which the owner updated by "just installing the stock combo update" with no issues other than drivers being clobbered. This was using the MSIWindOSX.iso (10.5.4) distro and other than drivers for the NIC, video (proper resolution), PS/2 hardware and sound, everything else is stock. It uses standard IBM style partitions (not GUID) and the stock Darwin bootloader to dual boot Win XP home (as came with the Wind) and OS X.Wed, 27 May 2009 14:38:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (memson)CommentsRE[9]: missleading title - they are dropping PowerPChttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365663
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365663Then it would be a PowerBook she has. Either way, it's a lovely Pro model with metal casing a generation previous to the intel based models.Wed, 27 May 2009 15:28:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (jabbotts)CommentsRE[5]: missleading title - ah.. music playershttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365668
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365668

I went with a non-iPod music player myself as it would have limited me intolerably.

- only works with Windows and osX
- only plays music, displays images and plays video (later models)

The iTouch and phone expand the possibilities greatly but you still don't get full functionality without voiding your warranty. They do very well for what they are designed to do though so I don't mean to slam anyone who found it to be the best choice for there own needs.

For me the iPod Touch is too expensive and lacks the space I need; I have 55gb of music and like carrying the whole lot around with me - so I prefer not to load an unload as I want music. Instead of an iPod Touch I went for an iPod Classic - it lacks features when compared to the iPod Touch but considering that I've never had any interest in using an iPod beyond just listening to music its pretty much a non-issue.

Regarding music; I don't know a single player out there that is hard disk based which supports AAC and supports Mac; I would go for Zune but Microsoft seem to thinking that only selling the device in the United States and it only working with Windows is apparently a 'winning formula' (as seen by the spectacular sales they've experience).

For me it has nothing to do with liking or hating something - it has to do with the fact that there is no vendor out there who is making a product I want. I don't think it is unreasonable to use an iPod because all the other vendors refuse to support my operating system I like and support the file formats I have compressed my music using - a format that is an open standard and as common these days as mp3s.Wed, 27 May 2009 15:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai)CommentsRE[5]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365669
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365669

I know A LOT of those. Then again, I frequent Amsterdam and that cesspool of a city is filled with people who would use such reasoning to buy products.

Well, that is pretty much a universal thing; people buying a Netbook because is 'cute', buying a Mac because it is 'cool', and iPod because 'its the in thing'. I find it funny in the case of the iPod the desire by some that they must have it hanging from their neck as if to say, "look at me, I have an iPod" (mine is in a plastic case and keep it in my pocket, and I use non-Apple ear phones).

Quite honestly, nothing says wanker more than a person who puts their ipod on display, wears their mobile phone clipped to their belt or walks around with a blue-tooth wireless widget in their ear as if to say, "I am so incredibly important I must be in contact at all hours of the day - bow down and worship my awesomeness".Edited 2009-05-27 16:00 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 15:58:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai)CommentsRE[10]: missleading title - they are dropping PowerPChttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365673
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365673A the tibooks, I miss mine dearly.Wed, 27 May 2009 16:16:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (aesiamun)CommentsVirtualboxhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365674
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365674So, has anyone tried this in Virtualbox yet? Is it possible to now run OS X (not video accelerated, presumably) under virtualization?Wed, 27 May 2009 16:18:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Denbish)CommentsRE[4]: Sweet Thom is giving hardware ...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365681
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365681Actually, my Core 2 Duo/GMA 950 Mac Mini draws about 20W or so when powered up, idling, and driving my 1080p plasma. I can tolerate 20W.Wed, 27 May 2009 17:21:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Tom K)CommentsRE: Apple Tolerates This To Some Extenthttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365691
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365691

But apparently, they are not so keen about getting rid of Hackintoshes.

Because Apple is making a fortune selling millions (?) of stand-alone copies of OSX. FYI, OSX is the #25 best selling software at Amazon.Edited 2009-05-27 18:34 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 18:34:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Bobthearch)CommentsRE: I am cheating...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365702
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365702

Maybe I'll dedicate a third drive for Linux.

Good grief, with OS X and Vista on there, a third drive for Linux is a god-awful waste of space.

That's like buying a Ferrari and a BMW, then going out and purchasing a Yugo.Edited 2009-05-27 19:42 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 19:41:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (rockwell)CommentsRE[5]: missleading titlehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365703
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365703No, you have it wrong. Not inciting but informing. And not legally binding terms of use. Terms of use which have never been tested in court, and on which opinions differ as to whether they are legally binding.

If the court rules against Psystar on the issue of installing on non-Apple branded hardware - and on that specific issue - then, perhaps, Apple might be able to proceed against people who urged others to do it. Maybe, but its a step further, they would be able to proceed against people who told others how to do it.

But no way can they do either one until there is a ruling that the terms are legally binding.Wed, 27 May 2009 19:43:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (alcibiades)CommentsRE[2]: I am cheating...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365704
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365704One can never have enough computers and enough operating systems running on them. This is why I follow OSNews, even through their ups and downs and all their content changes. Wed, 27 May 2009 20:10:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Tuishimi)CommentsRE[3]: I am cheating...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365705
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365705

One can never have enough computers and enough operating systems running on them.

Amen! I remember an article I read once about a guy who had over a 100 OS's booting on one drive. Why? Because. And I agree with the parent comment that Linux is very economical, efficient, and downright sexy, just like the Yugo!Wed, 27 May 2009 20:14:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fretinator)CommentsRE[2]: ???http://www.osnews.com/thread?365706
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365706

If Thom can legally do it, so can Psystar. Neither the EULA nor the law makes any distinction.

What mom and pop hackintosh builders has Apple sued other than Psystar?

Guys like Thom building their own hackintosh aren't going to cut into Apple's margins. Psystar, however, very well could (though likely not in this specific case, but Apple has to protect their IP and business model and Psystar put a big bulls-eye on their business). There is a big difference.Wed, 27 May 2009 20:18:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (macUser)CommentsYou want to make it legalhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365707
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365707This ain't it... If you read the EULA though, there IS a legal route.

From the EULA for OS X:2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

In this sense labelled does not mean print a label and slap it on, but product branding. Solution? Take any old dead apple, slap new componants into it as an 'upgrade' - and boom. So much for the EULA.

Hence my Apple IIe I shoe-horned the guts from a usb blueberry imac keyboard into with a new bezel... running 10.5.6 leoptard.Wed, 27 May 2009 20:34:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (deathshadow)CommentsRE[2]: I am cheating...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365715
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365715

Good grief, with OS X and Vista on there, a third drive for Linux is a god-awful waste of space.
That's like buying a Ferrari and a BMW, then going out and purchasing a Yugo.

I keep hearing the comparison of Macs to Ferraris and of other computers to "lesser" cars. However, this metaphor is utterly inaccurate.

A better analogy would be to compare types of computers to brands of cars.

For instance, Macs are like Volkswagens -- a lot of Macs have the cute looks of a Volkswagen Beetle, and a lot of girls like them.

Volkswagen does make other nice looking cars, but not really powerful racers. They are simple, but they usually are not very fast and nimble. Looks and simplicity are the appeal of Macs and Volkswagens.

Windows machines are like Fords. Good workhorses, some are very nice looking and stylish (just like Macs/Volkswagen Beetles), some are sporty, but the maintenance is generally more involved than that of cars made outside America. Some Windows/Fords are very, very fast racers.

Linux machines are like all the other cars, including Yugos, Toyotas, old Chevys, Formula 1 race cars, etc. Some Linux computers are just like the fastest car in the world, the ThrustSSC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThrustSSC

For many years, the fastest computer in the world was always a Linux computer, and that condition will probably exist for decades. Furthermore, over 75% of the top 500 fastest computers in the world are Linux computers and likely will be Linux computers for many decades.

Probably, no Mac will ever earn the title of "World's Fastest Computer."

There are zillions of different types of Linux machines -- they can't be categorized like the few Macs can be categorized. Linux runs on almost anything. Some are cute/stylish like Macs/Volkswagens, some are powerful workhorses, like Fords. Some are home-made. Some are clunky, and some are the most nimble-handling machines. Some are easy to drive/use, while being limiting when one wants power. Others, take time to learn, but eventually reward the user with speed, power and agility.

So, please stop using the Mac/sportscar analogy. It doesn't really apply.Edited 2009-05-27 21:53 UTCWed, 27 May 2009 21:45:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (tupp)CommentsRE[11]: missleading title - tis a nice machinehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365716
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365716It's a nice bit of hardware I do have to admit. I don't think I could be a non-metal macbook now after working on it. It's stood up to some pretty good dings too.Wed, 27 May 2009 21:47:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (jabbotts)CommentsRE[6]: missleading title - ick.. Zune first gen was badhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365717
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365717You may find benefit in freeing your music. AAC effectively locks you into a single device provider where your legally collected music would be come more portable in an mp3 or other format. MP3 is supported fully in iTunes and on the portable player still also. Having your entire library with you definately has it's benefits too.

The new generation Zune may justify itself but you where better off for being in a market without the original "me too, me too" Zune. We'll see how the new device does on it's own merits when it does turn up. I've just started seeing early shots of it today.

I can understand the lack of a wanted product. I stuck with my Palm T5 for years because no device from Palm or anyone else could actually be called an upgrade from it. Even the Palm Lifedrive would have been a functional downgrade to a platter drive that wasn't going to like bouncing about in my pocket. Size was a similar consideration for me though long before the iTouch was a leaked rumour even. My chosen device gave me removeable SD slots to expand the storage with; not to 60 gigs worth but more than enough for my needs.

I do like that you chose the older model rather than the latest marketing blitz celebrity model. If all you want to do is store and play your music the pre-Touch models do very well at that.Wed, 27 May 2009 21:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (jabbotts)CommentsAre you totally braindead?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365720
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365720Darwin is covered by the LGPL and is technically ope-sores. Everything that sits on top of Darwin that makes up OSX is *PROPRIETRY*, and is not opensores.

You don't have to be an Apple lawyer to see this article is so bloody useless and full of mis-information, how can any of it be trusted? It can't. Even the EFF would take the author to task over the title of this posting, because it is blatantly untrue.Wed, 27 May 2009 22:36:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Hyram)CommentsRE[3]: I am cheating...http://www.osnews.com/thread?365727
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365727

For many years, the fastest computer in the world was always a Linux computer, and that condition will probably exist for decades. Furthermore, over 75% of the top 500 fastest computers in the world are Linux computers and likely will be Linux computers for many decades.

Probably, no Mac will ever earn the title of "World's Fastest Computer."

No mac is currently the fastest computers, but this one http://www.arc.vt.edu/arc/SystemX/ is pretty fast, the fastest cluster put together by a university at one time. It's common in accedemia and the government to use XServs as clusters like this because it has Xgrid, the easiest to operate grid software. Every US Navy sub also has 39 Xservs in a cluster sitting on it to run the sonar analysis software, both for Xgrid, and because it's one of the quietest rack mounted servers available; important on a modern sub.

Although, in my opinion, Linux makes a better server, don't assume that OS X, which also is Unix, is useless for high performance computing; since with Xgrid, or other Unix software for that matter, it can make a great cluster. Take a look at the hardware in the above link, and consider that today's Xserv is even more powerful, though if you don't have rack mounting needs, a Mac Pro is more cost-effective. (And is actually priced well for what it is, a dual Xeon Unix workstation.)Thu, 28 May 2009 00:37:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MobyTurbo)CommentsDon't switch, eh?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365740
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365740So in one week we first get the solid advice to people to not switch to a Mac because they know Windows and THEN an article about switching to Mac in a convoluted and possibly illegal way.

That makes so much sense.Thu, 28 May 2009 05:05:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (dlundh)CommentsRE: Don't switch, eh?http://www.osnews.com/thread?365742
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365742First off, why would you ~want~ to read a website where everyone has the same opinion? I'm glad to come here and read opposing opinions and a variety of insights, and I'd be disappointed if there was a unified "OSNews Viewpoint."

Convoluted? Yeah, probably. That's what made it interesting.

Illegal? Absolutely not. Not by any law I'm aware of.Thu, 28 May 2009 05:29:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Bobthearch)CommentsRE[12]: missleading title - tis a nice machinehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365773
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365773Yeah it's nice, but it's underpowered by today's standards. The macbook isn't a bad machine and if you go with the white/black models, you can still get firewire.

My aging macbook will need a replacement shortly and I really don't want to give up firewire, looks like I might just upgrade to a MBP.Thu, 28 May 2009 13:31:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (aesiamun)CommentsRE[13]: missleading title - it's cost for mehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365804
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365804Ours is showing it's age too but a new notebook is not within the budget and it'll have to be replaced with another Apple to keep it's key user happy.Thu, 28 May 2009 16:14:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (jabbotts)CommentsRE[7]: missleading title - ick.. Zune first gen was badhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365934
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365934

You may find benefit in freeing your music. AAC effectively locks you into a single device provider where your legally collected music would be come more portable in an mp3 or other format. MP3 is supported fully in iTunes and on the portable player still also. Having your entire library with you definately has it's benefits too.

The new generation Zune may justify itself but you where better off for being in a market without the original "me too, me too" Zune. We'll see how the new device does on it's own merits when it does turn up. I've just started seeing early shots of it today.

I can understand the lack of a wanted product. I stuck with my Palm T5 for years because no device from Palm or anyone else could actually be called an upgrade from it. Even the Palm Lifedrive would have been a functional downgrade to a platter drive that wasn't going to like bouncing about in my pocket. Size was a similar consideration for me though long before the iTouch was a leaked rumour even. My chosen device gave me removeable SD slots to expand the storage with; not to 60 gigs worth but more than enough for my needs.

I do like that you chose the older model rather than the latest marketing blitz celebrity model. If all you want to do is store and play your music the pre-Touch models do very well at that.

The lifedrive was an interesting device mind you - I have a feeling that what Palm wanted to supply was a hand held device with a decent amount of space - the problem being if they tried to have that sort of space using flash it would have either been impossible or simply no feasible because the price would be extremely high.

For me, all my music has been ripped in AAC format, it is a licensable and open format that anyone can implement; so in all due respect, if these companies can support and obscure and quite frankly, worthless format like WMV and WMA, I think it is a pretty small call to ask a vendor to support AAC given it is pretty much as common as mp3 these days.

For me, I have nothing against Microsoft as to just as justification for not using the Zune; the problem is that Microsoft refuses to sell it to customers outside the United States (why? doesn't Microsoft realise that we live in a borderless international age? or do they still live in the 1950s where the world revolves around America?) and I can't load music onto it on non-Microsoft platforms. Microsoft could have used the bog standard MTP protocol but they decided to use a proprietary incompatible protocol that ads nothing over using MTP. If Zune did support the bog standard MTP protocol then I'd be able to load music onto it using XNJB.Edited 2009-05-29 03:26 UTCFri, 29 May 2009 03:24:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai)Commentsand you havehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?365951
http://www.osnews.com/thread?365951a ugly pc with a good looking operatingsystemFri, 29 May 2009 05:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Mellin)CommentsRE: Your &quot;legal&quot; argument is completely wronghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?366092
http://www.osnews.com/thread?366092I disagree. It is perfectly legal to modify Darwin code as one sees fit. If Apple's copy-protection scheme for OS X relies upon Darwin, it cannot legally enforce that scheme, since doing so would violate the terms of Darwin's open-source license.

In other words, Apple can't put code into Darwin, declare that code part of its OS X copy-protection scheme, and assert that it is thus illegal for other developers to alter that code. If Apple even attempted such a thing, it would by definition amount to a licensing violation -- and thus would be unenforceable.

If Apple's copy-protection scheme does not rely upon Darwin, then modifying Darwin does not qualify as circumvention in the first place.

And hardware-based protection is a moot point. If you're using non-Apple commodity hardware, then there is no firmware-based protection to work around -- and thus no circumvention.

The real legal issue here, IMO, is the Apple EULA for OS X. I strongly suspect that by "labeling," Apple is not simply referring to a cutesy decal on the system case. Rather, in this case, "labeling" is shorthand for "Apple-branded," or in other words, Apple-proprietary hardware.

I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from pursuing this experiment -- software EULAs are generally a revolting species of legal monster, and Apple's EULAs are no exception. And this presents absolutely no threat -- none -- to Apple's business, since there is zero chance this kind of hack will cost the company any paying customers. But really, I think it's a mistake to take the world "label" too literally in this context.

That should be a great system when you build it, I got mine almost the same spec a few months ago.

GA-EP45-UD3P + Core 2 Quad 9400 (2.66) and 8GB of DDR2 all for $400 after rebates. Added a cheap GeForce 9400 and borrowed the rest from an older system. I never got onboard sound to work so I substituted a SIIG USB sound device.

Next job is to replace the noisy Intel stock fan/sink with a fanless heap pipe tower plus a slower 120mm fan. The Quad core and board both run very cool but I haven't really loaded it yet.

I used the older Darwin/Linux loader CD with a hacked January iso image off RapidShare, but I have an older MiniMac and OSX DVD so was not too worried. If I do a reinstall, I will definitely try the 123 + real DVD both to be more legal, save fuss and to avoid the day long download. I also installed the same OSX image onto an 8GB SD card but have to boot it through the Darwin CD. The OSX/SD card is very slow. Contemplating getting a real SSD drive or one of those new 16GB USB+SATA hybrid eFlash sticks, acts like a real SATA SSD but looks like a chunky USB stick.

After a few months of working with this OSX system, I have slid back to Vista and even Windows 2K on other drives. Would be nice to figure out how to do safe multiple OS installs with OSX. Will be adding Windows 7 RC on it soon. Would really like to see Haiku on it one day. The Ubuntu HH install mostly worked but no network connect.

And for Thom thanks for this article. When I bought this Gigabyte, I was sorely tempted to also buy the much cheaper Intel miniITX Atom board to build a small Mac or at least test the install out. Now I know it will work. Would be nice to replace some full size clunkers with something small, cheap and low power for the kids, but then I would be using OSX several times over, probably not so cool.Fri, 29 May 2009 20:54:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (transputer_guy)CommentsRE[10]: missleading title - they are dropping PowerPChttp://www.osnews.com/thread?366094
http://www.osnews.com/thread?366094Whilst I do feel your pain, Powerbooks are 4+ years old now.Fri, 29 May 2009 21:06:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (memson)CommentsRE[4]: I am cheating...http://www.osnews.com/thread?366147
http://www.osnews.com/thread?366147

Every US Navy sub also has 39 Xservs in a cluster sitting on it to run the sonar analysis software, both for Xgrid, and because it's one of the quietest rack mounted servers available; important on a modern sub.

Yes, and no. The submarines do use parts from Xserves, but they're mounted in a custom chassis and run linux. See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7789Sat, 30 May 2009 05:40:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (sciurus)Commentsgood article, but...http://www.osnews.com/thread?366213
http://www.osnews.com/thread?366213While I enjoyed the article and agree with most points presented by Thom, I think, quite frankly, it's stupid to assume that merely placing a sticker on a PC will make it an "Apple labeled" computer. Apple didn't label it, YOU did. Judges do have brains.Sat, 30 May 2009 23:53:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (sinnerman)CommentsThe sleep issuehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?366239
http://www.osnews.com/thread?366239I'm on my way to order the Foxconn. Not that I need a hackintosh (or a non-hackintosh as you say it), but just because I can.

The line-in issue, I think I can live with that. The sleep issue is a major roadblock though. I can't conceive a "Mac" that can't sleep.

Have you dug a bit further about it? Did you find a com.thom.kext.SleepingPill or somthing like that?

You Sure? They made a good work everyday, everywhere in the world to prove you wrong. ;-)

The sticker thing, of course, is a joke for people living in countries where EULA's are considered abusive. I'm one of these folks. But the weather sucks. You can't have it all.Sun, 31 May 2009 06:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MajorTom)CommentsRE: Are you totally braindead?http://www.osnews.com/thread?366254
http://www.osnews.com/thread?366254

Darwin is covered by the LGPL and is technically ope-sores. Everything that sits on top of Darwin that makes up OSX is *PROPRIETRY*, and is not opensores.

Darwin under the LGPL! RMS must be really proud. Darwin is under the APSL. You can't find more different to the LGPL than APSL. As far as free software licenses go, they are night and day.

You don't have to be an Apple lawyer to see this article is so bloody useless and full of mis-information, how can any of it be trusted?

Well, you just proved that you are the one who doesn't know what he talks about. Thom is right from the beginning to the start.Sun, 31 May 2009 09:59:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MajorTom)CommentsRE[2]: I am cheating...http://www.osnews.com/thread?366395
http://www.osnews.com/thread?366395I hope it will be. At the moment I am having a serious problem with a component, narrowing it down hopefully tonight or tomorrow.

She starts to come up, then BOOM powers completely off. Once she got past the Gigabyte splash screen onto the HW id screen, but that has been the farthest.

Tried with/without ram, will try someone else's ram tonight. Tried sans HD, other internal peripherals, no go, same thing. I think it might be the CPU, PS or the MB itself. Hope to find out... friend is bringing over spare parts we can swap out, and I have a core 2 duo lying around somewhere we can swap in.